2010/8/27 Charles Wilson: > On 8/27/2010 2:33 PM, Andy Koppe wrote: >> On 27 August 2010 19:22, neomjp wrote: >>> 2. I understand that the reason to have tcltk-20080420-1 as a win32 app is >>> to have a graphical insight that does not depend on X Window. >> >> Cygwin programs can have Win32 interfaces actually, as proven by the >> likes of rxvt, mintty, and the Xwin server itself. > > The real issue is that tcltk-20080420-1 presents the GDI (e.g. native > windows) backend implementation for tcl/tk. I was proposing that we > eventually modify our offerings so that the new (probably split up) > replacement package(s) present the X11 backend implementation instead. > > It has nothing to do with whether "tcltk" is a "win32" *application* as > opposed to a cygwin one. It's all about which interface the > application/library uses to put graphics on the screen: GDI or X11. > > So far, nothing has occurred on that line AFAIK. If it is to happen, > the current maintainer has to just pull the trigger and say "we are > going to do this". Existing maintainers of tcl/tk clients will then > adapt; until (if) that happens, nothing will change. > > I think the big hangups were (a) insight (b) git (c) python-idle. > insight might actually be dead or dying, not sure. Obviously git and > python-idle both work with X (on linux) so it's doable to convert -- > just a nuisance.
A big nuisance in my eyes. Why do I have to start a xserver, when I can use native fast small GDI? The PIPE problem appears elsewhere also, and will be fixed with 1.7.7. -- Reini -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
